Some sobering reading - Lancair a widow maker?

[Antoine]

The NTSB has gone to unusual lengths in analyzing the spectacular accident that took the life of Micron Technology's CEO. He was flying a turboprop Lancair IV P.

The report makes for very very good reading for anyone (like me) considering building or buying an experimental aircraft. Now I know what the extra 10% speed costs.

http://media.kboi2.com/documents/Applet ... actual.pdf

While the accident victim made some deadly mistakes of his own, I was quite shocked to see how the report is pointing an accusing finger at Lancair as a company.
I cannot imagine harder wording that would still remain "lawyer safe".
The accident data shows that all Lancairs except the Evolution have a horrifying accident rate.
The description of the flying characteristics of the turboprop version of the Lancair IV can best be summarized as "flying coffin".

Many of the technical facts presented in the report about this airplane being essentially uncontrollable come from ex-Lancair insiders. Yet even today their website boasts about their excellent safety record.
They should be doing quite the opposite and warning the public that this is not your "take the family around" plane - I am surprised that nobody sued them so far.

Is Lancair an honest and trustworthy supplier of kit airplanes? Or are they just widow makers who sold vicious designs for many years and were not worried about their products killing a significant portion of their customers?

[rwtucker]

I'm far from an expert on this but I have a few observations.

I knew Steve and I fly BOI. I was there the day he spun in. For those who don't know, Steve was a skilled pilot who flew many aircraft including a vintage fighter jet. He did, as the NTSB report mentions, have a passion for what many of us would call risky flying but he was meticulous about safety. I have a hard time visualizing pilot error as a cause.

Around here, this particular Lancair airframe is regarded as one that requires very close attention to the numbers when low and slow. It is designed for speed. In terms of forgiveness, it is almost at the opposite extreme of our DA40's (which I have often commented are too forgiving to be effective as trainers). Additionally, there is very little data on the impact of the special powerplant Steve's aircraft had on its slow flight performance. One could speculate that it would only increase the risk because of spool-up issues.

This particular model needs to be put in perspective in relation to Lancairs in general. Recall that the main line of Lancairs spun off to Columbia (the 300 and 400) which was eventually purchased by Cessna and became the C400. This particular ancestral line is more stable. It is not quite as stable as our DA40s but, in my opinion, is more stable than a C180. Among other things, the Columbia added rudder stops to reduce the potential for a base-to-final skid migrating to a snap spin.

I have flown the Columbia 400 (540, dual turbos, intercoolers). It is an excellent aircraft. Three things impressed me in addition to its blazing speed. The engineering, manufacturing, and fit and finish appeared to me to be even better than the DA40, making it an unusual small GA aircraft. Second, even under an aggressive stall, the ailerons were more responsive than those of the DA40 with both wings stalled. Last, perhaps not too important, I instantly loved the joystick control. It is more sophisticated and natural feeling than the more cheaply designed Cirrus stick.

My personal opinion is that the faster Lancairs (even those with conventional 540's) need to be matched to the pilot's personality. If you fly the numbers naturally, consistently, and without fail, it could be a great aircraft, other features being desirable. If, like me, you are cautious but not always quite so precise, I would pick another aircraft. The same can be said about many designs such as the Vans RVs of which dozens if not hundreds are safely flying around here.

[Rich]

My reply would focus on the entire fleet of "Experimental" (more correctly, amateur-built). In my extreme view, it should not be permitted to sell one of these to a non-builder. In one way or another, each of these is a one-off, to far more a degree than just what we choose add to DA40's say. Note, for example, a builder can arbitrarily say "his" plane has a higher GTOW than the designers/kit providers say it has. Builders also often take something designed by professionals and decide they can have "more", so they tinker. Bigger engines being the most "experimental". (Rich VanGrunsven has published numerous caveats about this sort of thing. His papers on this and many other subjects are very good reading, BTW.) Extreme examples like Lancairs are on the knife-edge already, and then you make that knife-edge even "sharper". It's all well and good to build a plane and take your own risks, but the person you sell it to often has no real basis on which to know what he's getting into.

Then there are goofy quirks like that which contributed to John Denver's fatal crash.

There's another aspect of these aircraft that doesn't get much attention. Many of this class of aircraft are very weak in the area of crash protection. They achieve these really cool numbers of being light with high payloads and speed and whatnot by having very little structure beyond what is required for flight. Look carefully inside some of these that have no upholstery and see what I mean.

[rwtucker]

Rich,

I agree in principle but Vans, Glasair (maybe more the C400 predecessor, there is a history there I don't fully understand), and Lancair are all pretty sophisticated systems with histories and lengthy requirements to attain airworthiness.

Your point on "not built by me" is a good one though and it is reflected in the "bargain" prices for these aircraft when built from scratch by unknown third parties. I would not fly one. On the other hand, some builders have developed reputations and their prices reflect it.

Then there is the "did you really build it option" that meets the FAA 51% requirements but moves all of the flight critical work to the professional manufacturer. Again, depends on the pilot and the aircraft. I would not hesitate to build a KitFox (just down the road from me) or a SuperCub if I were in the market. There are so many expert builders around here and thousands of them are flying in the Northwest without incident. Not so many Lancairs. No matter who builds them, some models are not much more forgiving than an F-101. Not for me.

[Antoine]

Not so many Lancairs. No matter who builds them, some models are not much more forgiving than an F-101. Not for me.

Yup, my conclusion too.
I will not even give Lancair the excuse of builders modding the planes or the documentation.
While this was also a factor, it only worsened a situation that was already unacceptable in the first place:
Lancair were the ones to design this turboprop monster and their own (ex) people admit in the report that the plane was fundamentally unstable. There is also a story about the tail of the 360 which had to be made larger after third party testing (CAFE?) showed the plane to be a nasty beast.
Taking the Lancair IV TP to market is akin to trading lethal risk for some cash - not exactly what I would call business ethics. People have died and Lancair got away with it and are still boasting about their safety track record.

About MTOW being set arbitrarily by the builder: I fully agree that this is a major issue and the FAA really should require engineering documentation to support any changes of weight and balance data from the kit manufacturer's specs.
A builder assist company offered me this idea when I was inquiring about acquiring an ES-P they had been building. When I asked what engineering work was in support of the MTOW increase they went silent...

[Rich]

Not so many Lancairs. No matter who builds them, some models are not much more forgiving than an F-101. Not for me.

About MTOW being set arbitrarily by the builder: I fully agree that this is a major issue and the FAA really should require engineering documentation to support any changes of weight and balance data from the kit manufacturer's specs.
A builder assist company offered me this idea when I was inquiring about acquiring an ES-P they had been building. When I asked what engineering work was in support of the MTOW increase they went silent...

On the other hand, there are pilots of airplanes of pretty much every type who arbitrarily do this on their own. Ever heard statements like "It'll carry everything you can stuff in it"?

[CFIDave]

In discussing Lancair, it's important to distinguish earlier designs like the IV-P (very unforgiving) vs. the newer Evolution model which is very safe. The turboprop Evo (which generates most revenue for the company) was designed to Part 23 certified aircraft standards with the same stall speed as a Cirrus, and thus far there has never been an Evo crash with more than 50 now flying. The worst Evo mishap was one that landed gear-up just a few days after it was ferried all the way from North America to its new owner in South Africa.

[rwtucker]

Ever heard statements like "It'll carry everything you can stuff in it"?

Hey Rich. Another (slightly) off-topic but I confess I have said something close to this with respect to my PA28-201T. With 1,300+ useful it is at the opposite end of the "be careful with that extra sandwich in your flightbag" vigilance demanded of we DA-40 owners. I used to fly with 40 gallons (3+ hours). With two couples on-board, average weight 160, that leaves 350 pounds for luggage. Try getting that much in baggage short of a load of bricks in the Dakota's cavernous baggage compartment. Then there is the conservative rating factor, at MTOW, it climbs 700-900+ FPM with zero CG issues. I'm not suggesting that anyone exceed MTOW but there are a few rare aircraft that promoted this kind of comment. The 201T was one of them.

I'm still waiting for a DA40/201T smerge. :-D

[Rich]

Ever heard statements like "It'll carry everything you can stuff in it"?

Hey Rich. Another (slightly) off-topic but I confess I have said something close to this with respect to my PA28-201T. With 1,300+ useful it is at the opposite end of the "be careful with that extra sandwich in your flightbag" vigilance demanded of we DA-40 owners. I used to fly with 40 gallons (3+ hours). With two couples on-board, average weight 160, that leaves 350 pounds for luggage. Try getting that much in baggage short of a load of bricks in the Dakota's cavernous baggage compartment. Then there is the conservative rating factor, at MTOW, it climbs 700-900+ FPM with zero CG issues. I'm not suggesting that anyone exceed MTOW but there are a few rare aircraft that promoted this kind of comment. The 201T was one of them.

I'm still waiting for a DA40/201T smerge. :-D

Sure, but you did leave 32 gal of fuel (196 lbs) and it's also easy to find 4 200-pounders. So you did in fact consider the weight. Those who don't consider this would load the thing up like a SUV on a road trip. I recall a crash back in the 80's where a guy was doing aerobatics in a Bonanza with 6 adults and a dog on board.

But we are somewhat hijacking this thread. Imagine if you could just have arbitrarily said that your Dakota had a 3800 lb. MTOW, because you wanted it to.

[Kai]

Testing post only. Sorry for the inconvenience.